Dubstepforum.com

transparency is bad business nowadays

ppl dont want some group w/ an agenda to pick out everything bad they tell them & start up some ad campaign or something

rayman612 wrote:transparency is bad business nowadays

ppl dont want some group w/ an agenda to pick out everything bad they tell them & start up some ad campaign or something

that doesn't sound very convincing..

Yeah of course we should be allowed a choice but i think there will be little choice in years to come as it will be either eat GM or nothing, by then the process will be more refined however. What i meant was that we have been eating livestock that have been fed GM soy and other things for about 20 years. Of course we should take the research seriously and Monsanto do seem very shady but i am worried that this one company and small amount of research will turn the population against GMOs in general which is dangerous imo.

m8son wrote:Monsanto do seem very shady but i am worried that this one company and small amount of research will turn the population against GMOs in general which is dangerous imo.

yeah all the more reason to just let the consumer's decide. don't lose their confidence.

inb4 m8son and nowaysj death match

dubunked wrote: also the whole 'we've been eating genetically modified food since the beginning of farms' thing is not totally true. again, dna splicing is completely different from artificial selection. we haven't been genetically modifying things in the realm of 2 species until very very recently. it's always been within one species (artificial selection).

Would you care to explain how it's different? I'm assuming by natural selection you mean (more or less) random mutations which are then cultivated further?

The mechanical process is different yes but surely the result is the same: altered genes. Only with GMOs you can actually target which genes to alter and not just blast a bunch of plants with radiation and hope for the mutation you want.

I think you mean it's different in the way that the donor gene comes from another organism, but surely genes are just sequences of code, essentially? It's the same in all organisms.

Agent 47 wrote:inb4 m8son and nowaysj death match

loool

Reese Liar wrote:blast a bunch of plants with radiation and hope for the mutation you want.

this would be more fun

m8son wrote:

Reese Liar wrote:blast a bunch of plants with radiation and hope for the mutation you want.

this would be more fun

It's a recipe equally well suited for horror movies and most of the plants we already eat

dubunked wrote:

rayman612 wrote:honestly never understood why ppl were so mad about them

imo the big reason to be alarmed about gmo's is because the agribusiness companies go to great lengths and spend ridiculous sums of money to hide the details from the public. if they're so sure they're safe, then why are they so scared of letting people do research into them? of letting people know what's in their food? of people finding out?

I always figured that companies kept everything secret because they don't want other companies taking their ideas. Basically it's a tool to reduce competition. capitalism.

plus ppl would get sacred of the real chemical names for no reason...

OGLemon wrote:

dubunked wrote:

rayman612 wrote:honestly never understood why ppl were so mad about them

imo the big reason to be alarmed about gmo's is because the agribusiness companies go to great lengths and spend ridiculous sums of money to hide the details from the public. if they're so sure they're safe, then why are they so scared of letting people do research into them? of letting people know what's in their food? of people finding out?

I always figured that companies kept everything secret because they don't want other companies taking their ideas. Basically it's a tool to reduce competition. capitalism.

Yeah, this. Most if not all of the GMO research done by public institutions (Copenhagen University as an example) is freely available to the public.

Now, I have no idea if Monsanto are secretly building the world's first remote controlled plant based mecha zombie (they might very well be) but the fact that they don't release any information from behind the scenes is probably more likely due to a fear of loss of profit.

lol. they don't just not release information. they block people from researching their shit. they spend millions of dollars to fix elections so that nutrition labels can't say "contains GMOs" on them. these things make no difference to their profit as long as their shit is safe. if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

@reese liar: throughout history, humans have artificially selected the best fruits, vegetables, cattle, dogs, etc. we've never taken genes from a fish and spliced them into the DNA of a tomato. it's not like "oh farmers have been doing this shit for thousands of years don't get ur panties in a wad over an acronym". it's always been within a single species that we've modified genes, never splicing genes from completely unrelated species. i'm not saying it's unsafe, i don't know, but i don't think we should say it's completely fine until it's scientifically proven.

dubunked wrote:if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

If you don't have anything to hide why worry about the NSA?

dubunked wrote:lol. they don't just not release information. they block people from researching their shit. they spend millions of dollars to fix elections so that nutrition labels can't say "contains GMOs" on them. these things make no difference to their profit as long as their shit is safe. if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

@reese liar: throughout history, humans have artificially selected the best fruits, vegetables, cattle, dogs, etc. we've never taken genes from a fish and spliced them into the DNA of a tomato. it's not like "oh farmers have been doing this shit for thousands of years don't get ur panties in a wad over an acronym". it's always been within a single species that we've modified genes, never splicing genes from completely unrelated species. i'm not saying it's unsafe, i don't know, but i don't think we should say it's completely fine until it's scientifically proven.

Well, most gene splicing atm isn't exactly as extreme as "take a gene from a fish and put it in a tomato", more like "let's take this very specific gene that makes this plant immune to these bacteria and put it in another plant" (as an example).

I'm all for testing things before I put them in my mouth, but honestly, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject I don't see why GMOs should inherently be more dangerous than conventionally cultivated plants (the thing about blasting stuff with radiation isn't a joke btw, a lot of times this is what is done when trying to cultivate a new trait in a plant. And this method is legally distinct from gene modification).
I guess to sum up, I'm for testing things but I'm also against legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear.

I guess I also have to state that I'm very much against Monsanto's business practices btw.

m8son wrote:

dubunked wrote:if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

If you don't have anything to hide why worry about the NSA?

i'm not worried about the nsa, but also because EVERYBODY has something to hide, and because they could go too far with their surveillance?

Reese Liar wrote:Well, most gene splicing atm aren't exactly as extreme as "take a gene from a fish and put it in a tomato", more like "let's take this very specific gene that makes this plant immune to these bacteria and put it in another plant" (as an example).

I'm all for testing things before I put them in my mouth, but honestly, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject I don't see why GMOs should inherently be more dangerous than conventionally cultivated plants (the thing about blasting stuff with radiation isn't a joke btw, a lot of times this is what is done when trying to cultivate a new trait in a plant. And this method is legally distinct from gene modification).
I guess to sum up, I'm for testing things but I'm also against legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear.

I guess I also have to state that I'm very much against Monsanto's business practices btw.

re underline: this is monsanto's propaganda. all of a sudden, trying to research something something or trying to put 'contains gmos' on a nutrition label somehow becomes "legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear". Who said anything about legislating or boycotting? Vitamin C is good for you. We put vitamin C on nutrition labels. It's not like nutrition labels are only for things that are bad for you.

re bold: nobody really knows. keep in mind that fucked up genes are what causes cancer and all kinds of other diseases. fucking with dna and then eating it certainly doesn't sound like a good idea, not sure if it's a bad one.

Agent 47 wrote:inb4 m8son and nowaysj death match

The bar is too low to participate. The outright lies already in this thread. Believe what you will, you're big boys.

To me, it seems like a lot of the protests against GMOs are along the lines of "it's not natural" etc., well no shit, but neither are cars or modern medicine or thousands of the others things you use every day.
If we could just remove feelings and fear from the discussion and just talk about the actual science (which I admit I don't know nearly enough about than I'd like), I think we would be much better off.

i believe that monsanto resurrected hitler and taught him science

dubunked wrote:

m8son wrote:

dubunked wrote:if it's safe, then they have nothing to worry about, right?

If you don't have anything to hide why worry about the NSA?

i'm not worried about the nsa, but also because EVERYBODY has something to hide, and because they could go too far with their surveillance?

Reese Liar wrote:Well, most gene splicing atm aren't exactly as extreme as "take a gene from a fish and put it in a tomato", more like "let's take this very specific gene that makes this plant immune to these bacteria and put it in another plant" (as an example).

I'm all for testing things before I put them in my mouth, but honestly, based on my (admittedly limited) knowledge on the subject I don't see why GMOs should inherently be more dangerous than conventionally cultivated plants (the thing about blasting stuff with radiation isn't a joke btw, a lot of times this is what is done when trying to cultivate a new trait in a plant. And this method is legally distinct from gene modification).
I guess to sum up, I'm for testing things but I'm also against legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear.

I guess I also have to state that I'm very much against Monsanto's business practices btw.

re underline: this is monsanto's propaganda. all of a sudden, trying to research something something or trying to put 'contains gmos' on a nutrition label somehow becomes "legislating and/or boycotting things based on irrational fear". Who said anything about legislating or boycotting? Vitamin C is good for you. We put vitamin C on nutrition labels. It's not like nutrition labels are only for things that are bad for you.

re bold: nobody really knows. keep in mind that fucked up genes are what causes cancer and all kinds of other diseases. fucking with dna and then eating it certainly doesn't sound like a good idea, not sure if it's a bad one.

I just attended a lecture a few weeks ago by a professor working at the University of Copenhagen (i.e. state-employed, not on Monsanto's payroll) who was very pro GMO in cases where it's beneficial (golden rice, for example. Blue tomatoes is another newer one). She was the first to admit she was clearly biased seeing as she was working with gene modification, but she was very adamant in conveying the message that GMOs should be examined on a case-by-case basis and that simply boycotting GMOs all together could have dire consequences for our future food supplies.

You keep going back to this thing about fucked up genes, but surely a controlled gene transplant transferring only ONE SPECIFIC GENE is better (at least on paper) than letting plants mutate on their own? The risk of unknown/unforeseen mutations exists both in the cases of GMOs and non-GMOs and is no more prevalent in either.